Boo! Rams only $22.9mil under cap.

St. Louis Rams
Cap room: $22.9 million
The Rams came out of 2006 with a respectable 8-8 record under first-year coach Scott Linehan. The Rams still have a dangerous offense. Marc Bulger is one of the top quarterbacks in the NFC. Torry Holt and Isaac Bruce are aging a little but they are a dangerous one-two punch at receiver. Steven Jackson is one of the league's most dangerous running backs. Those are the positives keeping the team afloat. The problems are many. The offensive line remains a concern. It struggled again last season. The defense improved through free agency and the draft but it needs more athletes. What makes things worse is that the ***** and Cardinals could be ready to pass the Rams in the NFC West, and St. Louis hasn't caught up to the Seahawks. The Rams could suffer a big loss if Kevin Curtis leaves. He's a dangerous receiver who is entering his prime. The Rams' 13 other free agents are mostly backups and key role players. The Rams have plenty of room to upgrade their roster. They may cut guard Adam Timmerman and linebacker Dexter Coakley, but there aren't any cap issues.

Re: Boo! Rams only $22.9mil under cap.

Re: Boo! Rams only $22.9mil under cap.

Its not just how much you have, but how much you have relative to other teams. How does this rank relative to other teams? I've seen one list that suggested we were in the top 5 or so, which would suggest we're in good shape.

Re: Boo! Rams only $22.9mil under cap.

Originally Posted by chiguy

Its not just how much you have, but how much you have relative to other teams. How does this rank relative to other teams? I've seen one list that suggested we were in the top 5 or so, which would suggest we're in good shape.

So, we're 8th in terms of space. Pretty good really since our only moderate re-sign concern is Curtis. The good news is some of those teams above us have pretty severe re-signing concerns or are in different position markets (QB, RB, OT) than we are. The bad news....teams like the Titans and whiners have very little in re-signing concerns and enough money to throw stupid funds after the marquee FAs.

"Before the gates of excellence the high gods have placed sweat; long is the road thereto and rough and steep at first; but when the heights are reached, then there is ease, though grievously hard in the winning." --- Hesiod

Re: Boo! Rams only $22.9mil under cap.

Maybe Clayton doen't have the correct figures. Is there an official source where we can get accurate cap figures. All of the previous projections had us at $32 Million. How did we lose $10 Million just like that? That's a third of what was projected previously. Yes, all thing are relative. But, a dollar is a dollar. The more of them you have the more you can spend on quality free agents.

Re: Boo! Rams only $22.9mil under cap.

Originally Posted by viper

Maybe Clayton doen't have the correct figures. Is there an official source where we can get accurate cap figures. All of the previous projections had us at $32 Million. How did we lose $10 Million just like that? That's a third of what was projected previously. Yes, all thing are relative. But, a dollar is a dollar. The more of them you have the more you can spend on quality free agents.

If accurate salary cap figures were easy for online fans to find, then I doubt John Clayton would have any trouble getting them. The more logical answer is simply that the early projection was incorrect, which would mean we never "lost" $10 million in cap room but simply didn't have it to begin with.

Re: Boo! Rams only $22.9mil under cap.

Keep in mind three things. First, bulgers cap number is going up when we resign him. Second, some amount (around 5 million give or take) is for the rookies. Third, cutting timmerman, coakley etc doesnt create a dollar for dollar cap savings at all due to the proration of the bonus dollars paid up front. Furthermore, when you cut guys, you still have to replace them on the roster and while that might be done cheaper, its not free, especially after you consider the bonus acceleration.